A chilling fear is gripping communities in California as David Allen Funston, a man once labeled “the monster parents fear the most,” is slated for potential release. Convicted in 1999 of sixteen felony counts involving the abduction and abuse of young children, Funston’s case has ignited a firestorm of opposition from law enforcement and prosecutors.
The decision to consider his release stems from California’s Elderly Parole Program, designed for aging inmates. However, for those who remember the terror Funston inflicted, the idea of his freedom is unthinkable. He received a sentence exceeding twenty years, plus three consecutive life terms, yet decades later, he’s nearing a return to society.
Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, after personally reviewing the horrific details of the original case, is adamant: Funston remains a clear and present danger. He questions how the parole board could arrive at a different conclusion after examining the same disturbing evidence, including heartbreaking statements from the young victims themselves.
The testimony of those children, Cooper emphasizes, was instrumental in securing Funston’s initial conviction. He vehemently rejects the notion that age automatically equates to safety, pointing out that many individuals in their 50s and 60s remain fully capable and active. To suggest someone released at 64 is incapable of harm is, in his view, dangerously naive.
District Attorney Thien Ho echoes Cooper’s outrage, branding Funston “the worst of the worst” – a predator who systematically targeted and assaulted vulnerable children. He warns that Funston is a “ticking time bomb” and vows to fight tirelessly to prevent his release, calling the elderly parole law fundamentally flawed.
The voices of Funston’s survivors are filled with anguish and dread. One victim, abducted at the tender age of four, expressed a raw, visceral fear, stating he “shouldn’t be breathing the same air” as those he harmed. The trauma of those experiences continues to haunt them decades later.
Funston’s crimes, committed in the mid-1990s, involved a calculated pattern of luring children with promises of treats and toys before abducting and brutally assaulting them. Court testimony revealed chilling details of threats used to silence his victims, including holding a weapon to a young girl’s throat.
Anne Marie Schubert, a former Sacramento County District Attorney who prosecuted the case, described it as the most disturbing child sexual predator case of her career. She has now formally requested that Funston be evaluated under California’s Sexually Violent Predator law, seeking civil commitment to a secure hospital instead of release.
Schubert argues that Funston’s predatory behavior – targeting multiple very young children, employing coercion, and issuing threats – perfectly aligns with the criteria for civil commitment. The potential for reoffense, she believes, is tragically high.
Currently incarcerated at the California Institution for Men in Chino, Funston’s release date remains uncertain. While the governor’s office maintains that parole eligibility is dictated by law and sentencing, and that elderly parolees historically have low recidivism rates, the overwhelming concern for public safety remains paramount.
The case has sparked a renewed debate about the criteria for elderly parole, particularly when dealing with individuals convicted of heinous crimes. The question lingers: should certain offenses automatically disqualify an inmate from consideration, regardless of age?
